RIAA's Response To Infringement Via Its IP Address... Is To Note Someone Else Did It

from the where-have-we-heard-that-before? dept

Oh this one just gets better and better. Remember how the YouHaveDownloaded system was used to pinpoint infringement done via an RIAA IP address (among other interesting places)? Well, now the RIAA is using the "someone else did it" defense. According to CNET:

RIAA spokesman Jonathan Lamy had an explanation for that that implies that a third-party vendor was responsible for the downloads. "Those partial IP addresses are similar to block addresses assigned to RIAA. However, those addresses are used by a third party vendor to serve up our public Web site," he said. "As I said earlier, they are not used by RIAA staff to access the Internet."

However, as TorrentFreak points out in response, Lamy is lying (shocker). Those addresses are not "similar" to RIAA addresses, they belong to the RIAA.

Now, of course, it's possible some other vendor was using them, but this seems rather ironic, coming from the RIAA, who has insisted for years that IP addresses are sufficient to accurately determine who is responsible for infringement. Apparently it works for everyone... but the RIAA.

Re: Re: Sigh... This type of schlock news is tiresome.

Many drug dealers are having to face hard times in this economy just like everyone else.

The 'one-stop-shop' dealers, as well as delivery service versus pickup, are the ones with the competitive advantage. It's better to keep around 'a guy' who can get anything, than someone who only has say weed.

For instance, if you're going to a phish concert this weekend, you might want a little weed in order to make the music palatable, but the following week you might be going to a rave and want ecstasy. It's better to get everything in one trip rather than have to deal with the underworld on multiple occasions. I know that my own guy is often late and when he does finally get her, he is totally sketchy. I keep him around though, because he always has what I need.

However, I would rather the concierge at my building not see this character coming up to visit more than say once or twice a month.

Re: Re: Re: Sigh... This type of schlock news is tiresome.

I like this analogy. Basically the RIAA was a successful coke dealer, then crack came around and suddenly anyone who got their hands on some coke could redistribute it cheaply and easily to everyone on the block. Recognizing the primary tool for this redistribution, they are now lobbying to outlaw frying pans...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh... This type of schlock news is tiresome.

The problem is that you people have no idea how studios or the entertainment industry works. The music studios, television studios, and movie studios, the majority of them, are all with a 20 mile radius of Hollywood, CA

It's also a fantasy in that it's been a fantasy factory for well nigh on a century now and has been reading far far too much of it's own press releases and has been believing that the fantasy is reality.

To the point the story makes. The very argument the RIAA is making here to "prove" it's innocence is something they won't accept from anyone else. Kinda like they won't accept a defense in a private home of "cousin johnny was here that weekend so he must have done it, not us". In the RIAA's case it proves nothing when they say "a contractor had to have done it" or words to that effect.

So if we are to accept the RIAA's word for it, as it doesn't appear that they're disputing that the block if IP addresses belong to them, then it seems that there's a better than even chance that they've been party to sending out cease and desist messages and taking people to court (and winning sometimes) on extremely flimsy information that their now admitting is next to useless or someone DID in fact "infringe" on MPAA "property" from inside the RIAA.

There's nothing schlocky about it unless Techdirt, CNET and others are all dealing in that according to you.

And no, the RIAA is not an officer of the court in the sense of law enforcement nor was it conducting an investigation or claiming that it was.

I do LOVE your drawing a parallel between Hollywood and drug dealers though. It's amazingly accurate.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh... This type of schlock news is tiresome.

Dear Santa

I am sorry to hear you were sued by Hollywood because your lead reindeer has a resemblance to the character Rudolf. To bad they got that restraining order to prevent him from flying this Christmas. My dead grandma was also sued by the content industry for downloading German death metal. Frank Sanatra I would understand but that, not so much.

I know I am going to be on your naughty list next year because I hacked your servers. All I did was look around!! I found that the heads of every record label, TV studio and movie studio is on your "COAL FOREVER" list. Why you did that in 24 pt bold font I don't understand. I think that is very harsh. People should be forgiving this time of year. It is a time of giving, and hope.

I would like no gifts this year. Instead I would like to brighten the day of the studio execs in Hollywood California. They really need it with how mean they are. I recently learned that "the majority of them, are all with a 20 mile radius of Hollywood, CA". Which should make delivery of the gift I would like to give them easy. I would like it delivered to The Ivy in LA. The gift is a Tsar Bomba. You might need a bigger sled though.

Signed your friend
Johnny age 12

P.S. Enclosed is a list of changes to your network to make it more secure.

----------------

Dear Johnny

I apologize for taking a year to get back to you. Between federal custody and the YouTube talk show circuit I have been busy. To bring you up to speed. I have to wear an ankle bracelet for the rest of my immortal life. It seems the whole smile and a wink thing, I do to get up and down chimneys, works to get out of jail cells. Who knew? They decided to save face after my 100th cookie run. So they changed the terms from life imprisonment to life with an ankle bracelet. That and no one in the US justice department had jobs lined up for after the change in administration.

So all is well now. I have placed you on my "NICE" (in 24 pt font) list this year and filled a 1 TB mp3 player with your favorite music.

Re: Sigh... This type of schlock news is tiresome.

Re: Re: Sigh... This type of schlock news is tiresome.

I think they realize that 'they are all in it together' and that one hand scratches anothers back.

Perhaps someone doing the same work at the RIAA comes across something which would interest a personal friend and professional contact over at the MPIA. It's also probably a good excuse to write off a business lunch.

I for one love getting out of the office as much as possible. Here at NBCU we can check out a golf cart and nosh over at Universal Studio Walk next door.

Re: Re: Sigh... This type of schlock news is tiresome.

Re: Sigh... This type of schlock news is tiresome.

absolutely, if doing drugs is wrong to the point of putting people in prison, why should we condone it just to catch others doing it? at best it's hypocritical, at worst it's an utter abuse of power and a reflection of what our drug laws actually represent, i.e. the 20th Century's Jim Crowe.

It just shows how corrupt the system is. The people that lost using that defense, can they get a new trial? No. Can they get refunded? No. Will this be completely ignored by congress while SOPA passes? Yes.

Re:

"Will this be completely ignored by congress while SOPA passes? Yes."

One possible outcome is a US pirate party with teeth affecting both the tea party and OWS, another is the joining of various organizations into a new party. This, if passed, could be one stone in bridging various groups into a coherent whole. Even if it is not passed it is another example people will remember of the lobbyist influenced government at work.

Re: Re: rofl

Now, of course, it's possible some other vendor was using them, but this seems rather ironic, coming from the RIAA, who has insisted for years that IP addresses are sufficient to accurately determine who is responsible for infringement. Apparently it works for everyone... but the RIAA.

I know you're desperate for a punchline here, but I just don't see it. The target of an infringement lawsuit and the RIAA can both use the some-other-dude-did-it defense. The IP address points to the subscriber of the address, in this case it's the RIAA. Then that subscriber has to come up with some defense, and in this case it's that some vendor did it. I'm not seeing any irony. Nice try though, I guess. You'll get 'em next time, Mike.

Re:

Well, the RIAA (or member label) is effectively saying they *believe* the person associated with the IP address did the downloading, so at the very least their "nuh-uh" in this case makes it less reasonable for them to rely solely on an IP address in stating that belief, and makes it much more difficult for them to effectively counter an "I didn't do it" defense.

Re: Re:

Well, the RIAA (or member label) is effectively saying they *believe* the person associated with the IP address did the downloading, so at the very least their "nuh-uh" in this case makes it less reasonable for them to rely solely on an IP address in stating that belief, and makes it much more difficult for them to effectively counter an "I didn't do it" defense.

They're not saying they believe the person associated with the IP address actually did the downloading, they're saying that there's enough evidence, if left unrebutted, to permit the inference that that person did it (or would otherwise be responsible for it). Either way, a defendant or the RIAA (or anyone else) can claim that somebody else is actually to blame. The same exact rules are applying here as would apply to any other IP address subscriber. The fact that the RIAA's IP address was apparently used to infringe doesn't change anything. That makes no sense. If your car drives through one of those photo red lights, they're going to send you the ticket even if it was your friend borrowing the car that day. It's reasonable to assume it was you, and if it wasn't, the burden shifts to you to prove it.

Re: Re: Re:

Eventually the absurdity of the 55 mph speed limit sunk in and in 2006 MassHighway traffic engineers recommended a speed limit increase. State Police vetoed the change, preferring the 99% violation rate that let them write tickets at will. Police have no legal role in setting speed limits. Somebody in the Romney administration weighed the risk of losing ticket revenue against the risk of being blamed for accidents. Police won.

After engineers lost that fight people began to worry about the high accident rate on Route 3. The state hired a consultant to do a Road Safety Audit. The consultantís report blamed the low speed limit, among other factors, for the high crash rate. The report explicitly recommended raising the speed limit.

Three years later, state officials have not followed the advice of their engineers, their consultant, or 100,000 drivers per day. State police are still out there running speed traps and helping keep the road as dangerous and profitable as they can.

Re: Re: Re:

I am rather amazed that the irony of this seems to escape you. Or you are just playing stupid in order not to compromise your insane industry position on all of this.

The RIAA did not care when they brought suit against someone for infringement, and the accused said "it wasn't me." The RIAA would call BS and keep on with the lawsuit. Now the RIAA has been suspected of infringement and are using the EXACT SAME EXCUSE they would always shoot down in court. While I do not see CBS pursuing them in this matter so we will never get a judges decision on it. Its still a little funny to see the tables turned.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

The RIAA did not care when they brought suit against someone for infringement, and the accused said "it wasn't me."

And the RIAA couldn't necessarily get out being sued here by saying they didn't do it either. And why should the RIAA have cared if someone said it wasn't them? Could they prove it? Were they lying? I'm thinking of Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset. Both lied under oath and said it wasn't them either. And look what that got them.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Wow dude.... just wow.

I never reference those specific cases. It was more of a general statement than anything really. I must say though that they have got you hooked on some serious fucking kool-aid.

As to the Tenenbaum though. Don't you think that the doctor who killed Michael Jackson is going to serve less time than Tenenbaum could is okay? Or the fact that his fines and fees were less than than what Tenenbaum is looking at is somehow wrong? Tenenbaum let some people download some music. Dr Murray fucking killed someone.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Don't you realize every instance of copyright infringement causes thousands if not millions of artists to die and costs the same as the GDP of some small nations. or at least thats what I've gleaned from the MAFIAA's claims.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

And the RIAA couldn't necessarily get out being sued here by saying they didn't do it either. And why should the RIAA have cared if someone said it wasn't them? Could they prove it? Were they lying? I'm thinking of Tenenbaum and Thomas-Rasset.

I'm thinking of Debbie Foster and Tanya Andersen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Records_v._Deborah_Foster
"Instead of immediately dropping the case against Deborah Foster and suing those they believed were responsible for the alleged infringement, the plaintiffs amended the complaint to add her daughter Amanda Foster, while keeping Ms. Foster as a co-defendant. The RIAA told her that she was liable for any infringement regardless of whether she had shared or downloaded files herself because she was the registered owner of the account."

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2008/05/andersen-relentless-in-quest-to-nail-th e-riaa.ars
"But the central piece of Andersen's complaint is the RIAA's conduct in Atlantic v. Andersen. She says that the RIAA could have with very little effort discovered the true identity of "gotenkito@KaZaA," the P2P user observed by MediaSentry, but instead chose to pursue its case against heródespite having "actually already identified the real 'gotenkito'" over 10 months before dismissing the case against her."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

While the arguments in Debbie Foster, in particular, might come back to haunt the RIAA, a case like this suffers from 2 problems.

1) Someone at the RIAA would have to download content outside of Big Content control, because the big boys are unlikely to sue each other over this.

2) Unless the downloader was someone of some importance, they would probably love to get sued and lose. They'd happily throw the person responsible under the bus and pay the fines, to have the legal ruling in their favor for future lawsuits.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

2) Unless the downloader was someone of some importance, they would probably love to get sued and lose. They'd happily throw the person responsible under the bus and pay the fines, to have the legal ruling in their favor for future lawsuits.

That pretty much sums it up, doesn't it. The proper response from the RIAA should have been "Yes, we are terribly sorry about this horrible incident and will be providing the rights holders with a x-billion dollar check to cover the fines, penalties, and lost sales. We are further going to model our demands on others by taking full responsibility for the security issue this indicates."

Instead they used the one excuse they had already labeled as being the single weakest. Not that I would expect anything more from such a lame organization, but it would have been kind of nice to be wrong for a change. sigh.

Re: Re: Re:

Well now the burden is on the RIAA to prove without a doubt that a third party did it, otherwise they are just full of it, isn't that right?

Also if I recall correctly some people even came forward in this very forum to say that the responsibility of what happens in ones connection is entirely square on the lap of the account holder of that IP address.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Actually it was that HP8000 printer they had hanging around, it must have been infected with the Sony CD rootkit (from when it was downloading all those CD's a couple years ago), and suddenly developed a taste for movies....

Re: Re: Re:

you are really so funny or an idiot...
remember the 70 year old granny that was threatened with a huge fine if she didn't pay the extortion demanded in a form letter... the lawyer for the copyright holder stated 'leaving a Wi-Fi router unsecured is akin to leaving a loaded gun in reach of a 3-year-old child'... so I guess the RIAA irresponsibly left a loaded gun for others to commit illegal acts.

Re: Re:

The hypocrisy is not that the RIAA is using the same defense as other people, it's that the RIAA insists that nobody is allowed to use the defense, and then uses it themselves.

Pay more attention.

OK, show me where "the RIAA insists that nobody is allowed to use the defense." It doesn't even make sense that they would say that since obviously everyone can use that defense. You guys aren't making much sense.

Re: Re: Re:

I agree with your thought process in regard to the raised defence of the RIAA here.

Though the RIAA and other industry bodies have said on numerous occasions that that defence does not fly since the account holder (of IP address) is absolutely responsible for whatever happens with their account unless the account holder can prove in court (they shift the burden from plaintiff onto the respondent in this instance) that they had no knowledge nor control over any third party (ie: cracking, phreaking etc) as long as that third party was NOT a familial person nor part of their immediate circle of associates.

Therefore in this instance the RIAA is stating that they should not only be held responsible for their own IP address they own, that they can use this defence even before any court action is initiated. Can you now see the hypocrisy?

What I can see is that this official statement is going to bite them in the arse next time they are at court by any responding attorney.

Re: Re: Re:

It is carefully kept off all the lists of excepted responses for any of the 3-stikes laws. Since those laws and the associated lists have been shown to be generated and payed for primarily by the MPAA and the RIAA that indicates pretty clearly that they are insisting that nobody is 'allowed' to use it.

Re:

If you don't see the irony, I suspect it's because your cranium is firmly entrenched in your rectum. Let me spell it out for you. The RIAA (not the courts necessarily) do not believe that "someone else used my IP address" is a valid excuse for infringement. Therefore, it it ironic since they are hypocrites. Do you understand now? If not, there's no helping you.

Re:

Except with the 6 strikes program they are shoveling onto us, the is no accepted answer of some other guy did it.
I wonder if they know SOPA will fail, just just want to distract us from 6 strikes happening.

And the irony is the RIAA never accepted the idea of some other guy did it in their lawsuits, where they sued the dead, lied to courts, sued people who didn't own computers, etc.

Pretending a block of assigned IP addresses are somehow dynamic and someone else did it is lying. Allowing them to use a defense they deny is valid in their court cases is just the wrong kind of funny.

Re:

Actually, Joe, the IP address in question isn't one the RIAA "subscribes" to in any sense of the word it's part of a block that's "owned" and controlled by them and only them.

So there is no question that someone at an IP address assigned only to the RIAA downloaded "infringing" material (notably the RIAA isn't denying that) but they're using the "some vendor" excuse instead of the "cousin johnny" defense, the same defense they insist that others can't use because their "investigations" say that the person who is assigned that address at that time is responsible for any and all actions done at that address, similar to your traffic light camera argument. Therefore, the responsibility for the piracy lays WITH the RIAA and not "cousin johnny" by your and, up till now, their logic and equating it with the speed trap camera lights.

THAT, my friend, is the irony, even if every word the RIAA is saying in its defense of itself is true.

So a vendor did it? But going by the RIAA's own lawsuits they believe that the owner of the ip is responsible for all network usage, so it doesn't matter who did it, by their own reasoning they are the responsible party and should be punished as if they were the one who infringed.

Re:

I thought this was more a copyright troll shakedown claim than an RIAA claim. I admit to having gaps in my knowledge of RIAA cases - when they offered the family x time to grieve and told the court the dead man was close to settling, except they lied and the man spent the last few weeks of his life fighting off these vultures I sorta gave up.

The only one I;ve seen pushing this idea lately is Randazza, who got someone to settle a case and pay off on a claim of your ip your fault, and the others point to that "win" to scare more settlements out of people.

Re: Re:

The RIAA has argued in court that that defense isn't valid,AFAIK. Certainly they've made it clear to those they send nasty letters and emails to that the "cousin johnny" defense isn't worth a hill of beans bringing in the traffic light speeding camera illustration that if you end your vehicle to someone who was caught speeding you, as the registered owner of the vehicle are responsible for its use. True enough in insurance land, where anything to get them off the hook is allowed and in collecting-traffic-fines-land where it seems to hold true as well.

It takes some cheek for them to pull that one out of the hat now and indicates a delicious lack of a sense of irony that one of their songwriters or muscians would have reminded them of after telling them a label still owed them money from the last pair of million selling CDs.

The RIAA gets a block of IPs assigned to them, just like, say, your local ISP. They take a part of that block, and assign it internally to the company the runs their websites and such - including all of their staff. Someone in that group may or may not have pirated something or created a torrent or whatever.

The RIAA has no more real control over a single IP address in their block than your ISP does.

The difference? The RIAA is pointing over at a guilty party, not clamming up and and wanting someone to actually sue them and prove the case before they say anything.

In an organization as big as the RIAA, with the number of people working for contractors and such, you don't think that one of them might be, maybe, just sort of, willing to take a risk to put a little shit on the RIAA?

Re:

They are not pointing at a guilty party, they are making assumptions that some "other contractor" did it... but it wasn't them and offer no evidence to support their claim other than their "holier than thou" armor.

People clam up when confronted by the copyright trolls because they trolls LIE to them.
Oh well if you tell me who did it we'll sue them not you.
If you want to say you didn't do it I will just ask all of your neighbors within WiFi distance if they were the ones who downloaded Anal Grannies 4 on your internet connection.
I need a list of everyone who has even looked at your house in the last 6 months so I can ask them if they downloaded it.

As far as proof the website is as accurate as the trolling methods that have been employed to capture IP addresses that are being accepted as factual and accurate in Federal Courts. Even with a copyright troll telling the Judge directly they mislead the court that the IP address would let them catch the infringer when seeking a sweeping order demanding an entire household turn over every device capable of holding a bit of data for them to sift through, a list of IP addresses is taken as being accurate.

The downside with your theory is that these events did not take place on a single day or a single download.
They demand universities block filesharing protocols yet leave the door open on their own network.
This is just them trying to avoid people figuring out they are unwilling to do what they demand of everyone else.

The RIAA should have complete control over their assigned IP block, they expect every other company on the planet to take extreme measures to protect their copyrights so why do they get a pass when they refuse to do what they demand of others?

Re: Re: Re:

No, you have that backwards. We are suggesting the exact opposite. We are suggesting that IP holders are NOT responsible for others use of their addresses. It's the MPAA and RIAA that are suggesting the ISPs should be responsible for every use of their IP blocks. This particular item simply highlights why we believe that idea is so stupid since even the RIAA can't safeguard their own IPs from unauthorized use.

It is also an ironic situation, but perhaps you are having trouble with the meaning of that word.

So the RIAA believe a third party vender used their IP address er wrong THE IRAA DO NOT own the address its only on license and they have broken the terms of that license. So we can withdrew service at will.